Why petitioner wants Ndii and Chigai jailed

President William Ruto's advisors David Ndii and Harriet Chigai. [File, Standard]

The Katiba Institute has filed a fresh contempt application against two of President William Ruto's former advisors accused of openly defying court orders that declared their appointments unconstitutional.

In an urgent application filed Monday, the civil society organisation wants the court to cite economist David Ndii and Harriet Chigai for contempt and punish them for what it terms deliberate disobedience of court ruling issued on January 22, 2026 by Justice Bahati Mwamuye that nullified the creation of 21 presidential advisory offices.

"That Ndii and Chigai be cited for contempt or be found to be in contempt of court for disobeying the orders made on January 22, 2026. The two should be punished appropriately for disobeying court orders in issue," the lobby group submitted.

The lobby group 's lawyer, Joshua Malidzo Nyawa argued that the two engaged in "conduct that amounts to a direct confrontation with the Judiciary" through both disobeying court orders and issuing statements undermining judicial authority.

The application, supported by an affidavit from Katiba Institute Executive Director Nora Mbagathi, alleges the two have disobeyed the Court orders in at least two material respects.

According to court documents, Chigai directly ignored the court orders by attending a public function on January 23, 2026, just one day after the ruling.

She posted on her X account (formerly Twitter) a photograph of herself at the event, accompanied by a caption stating: "Through coordinated collaboration across government and key stakeholders, we are advancing responsive policies that broaden economic participation, strengthen productivity, and support shared national property."

The petitioner argues this constitutes a direct and deliberate violation of the orders of the Court.

Second, Ndii is accused of scandalising the court through a series of inflammatory social media posts.

Immediately after the judgment, he tweeted: "Pyrrhic victory. We don't need state officers to advise the president, we supported him for two years on the road to victory. We can do it as an informal kitchen cabinet over breakfast every morning."

Katiba argues that the posts by Ndii are beyond permissible commentary on the decision, as protected under Article 33 of the Constitution, and instead threatened and intimidated the Judiciary and judicial officers.

The application notes that the court had specifically rejected the concept of a "kitchen cabinet" in its ruling as inconsistent with prudent use of resources, yet Ndii announced they would "proceed with their kitchen cabinets."

Another tweet cited in the application states: "Reminder to the political loosers who I am told have sworn to paralyse the administration using the Courts…When law collides with politics, politics wins. Everytime."

The petitioner argues this represents an assertion that the Judiciary is not enforcing the Constitution, that law gives way to politics, and that the courts have acquiesced to being instrumentalised by so-called political losers, thereby exercising political rather than judicial power.

The application reserves particular concern for a January 24 tweet in which Ndii posted a newspaper cutting featuring a photograph of the Deputy Chief Justice, referencing when her driver was shot following the 2017 presidential election petition judgment.

The tweet stated: "A story. Following 2017 election ruling, jubilee refused to comply. Some people wanted us to go to court. @Orengo_james said absolutely not, told us we had cashed that cheque, going back would endanger the court. My NGO friends went ahead. Consequence? As you live, learn."

The application characterizes this as not only a subtle attack on the judiciary but also an indirect threat to the judge's life.

Mbagathi's affidavit emphasizes that the 21 advisors had actual and constructive knowledge of the court orders through both their legal representation and widespread media outlets.

"The Interested Parties, therefore, had actual and constructive knowledge of the existence of the Court orders," Mbagathi stated, adding that their conduct "constitutes a serious interference with the administration of justice and demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rule of law."

The application seeks orders citing both parties for contempt and appropriate punishment for disobeying court orders.

"Unless this Court intervenes immediately to send a clear and firm message, this conduct risks going unchecked; there exists a real and imminent danger that the authority of the Court and the integrity of the judicial process will be brought into disrepute in the eyes of the public," Nyawa states in the certificate of urgency.

The case is pending hearing.